Re: [Caml-list] Are refs volatile?

[Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1637 bytes --]

I find the question hard to understand, so I may have missed a subtlety in
the code you have shown.

The purpose of volatile memory is to share memory between the current
program and an unknown environment. In your exemple, the value of (quit), a
boolean reference, is *not* shared, it is the value of (set_quit) that is
passed to the environment. So the question *cannot* be about the accesses
to the value "quit", which are clearly marked.

One way to rephrase the question would be: "could the compiler assume than
(set_quit) will never be called and thus optimize (!quit) to (false)?". I
don't see how that could ever be correct, given that the function
(set_quit) is passed to an external function.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rich@annexia.org> wrote:

> Some code I wrote recently does:
>
>   let quit = ref false in
>   let set_quit _ = quit := true in
>   Sys.set_signal Sys.sigint (Sys.Signal_handle set_quit);
>   Sys.set_signal Sys.sigquit (Sys.Signal_handle set_quit);
>
> and later on (where `tasks' is a list of long-running tasks):
>
>   List.iter (
>     fun task ->
>       if not !quit then task ();
>   ) tasks;
>
> This works fine.  My question is, could a change to the compiler in
> future cause the reference to !quit to be optimized away?  And if so,
> is there a way to mark it as "volatile" (in the C sense)?
>
> Rich.
>
> --
> Richard Jones
> Red Hat
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2428 bytes --]